What science says about homosexuality

[quatona]

The study I provided in another post suggests that many homosexuals identify with being homosexual only after sexual abuse. Do you still believe its right in this context?

Do I believe that what is right?
The study? I don´t know.
Sexual abuse? No.
Identfying with being homosexual? Why sure.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Back to square one, Zaac. AND, we ALWAYS come back to square one. YOU are a sinner ...correct? So, why is a homosexual MORE of a sinner than you are? The question is real, by the way. I can never figure this one out. I mean, "I" can't point the finger at anyone because I'm unworthy ...how come you can?

I've seen arguments like this many times and typically when the answer is provided, it is ignored.

The answer to your question is that we are all God's children. We all fall short (sin). The difference is that some of us regret our actions and make no excuse for them. We condemn ourselves for what we did and do our best to change our behavior though we know that we will continue to fall short at times. In other words, we are repentant.

Those with an opposing view however, not only dismiss sinful behavior but justify the behavior as normal, natural, and even moral then encourage the continuance of the behavior. In short, they are unrepentant.

With regards to pointing fingers, anyone can point a finger. When I fall short, I don't care who it is correcting me, I appreciate that I'm being corrected and not being allowed to wander or wallow in my sin.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Ah yes, before interracial marriage was allowed, blacks had every right whites had. They could marry within their own race, but marrying with another race was against god's law. So it was all perfectly equal. If a white woman loved a black man or a black woman loved a white man, well, too bad for them, they should just find someone in their own race, after all, we all have the freedom to choose who we love. If someone chooses to love someone of the wrong type, then they deserve punishment.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Yet, there are many blacks who say there is absolutely no parallel between racism and the issue of homosexuality. And despite the claims of parallels, many blacks are making it a point to make sure gay behavior is not promoted as a civil rights struggle by voting down gay marriage.

 

[Maren]

And?

Thier are plenty of homosexuals who say they were born that way.

You're simply siding with that postion becuase it is the one that your prejudice backs.


I don't personally believe people are "born that way", thier are definatly aspects of nurture in it, something like 85-90% of us straights are to some extent homo-sexual, along with similar statistics for gays.

I take that as a sign that our sexuality has an ability to fluctuate.


Edit: Steelers post intrigued me, I think the out-come of homosexuality after abuse stems from people having a messed up experience which toys with their identity.

However to say that homosexualities cause is abusation is redundant, homosexuality serves it's evoloutionary purpose, and thier are plenty of homosexuals who have no history of abuse.

But nonetheless and intriguing study in the world of psycho-sexuality. (I believe this is the correct term)

And I ultimately think the question of if people are "born that way" is meaningless. Ultimately what is actually being argued is if sexuality can alter (at least from the standpoint of pure homosexual to heterosexual). And, of course, there are many who are bisexual already and can be happy with someone of either gender. On this, I think the science is fairly solid that most people (the studies I've seen typically suggest over 90%) are unable to change their orientation significantly.

Though I must also say that I believe in the idea that there are two parts to sexual orientation, there is you current orientation and then also an aspect that determines how flexible your orientation is. For some people, it seems their orientation is quite flexible -- this small group (again, this would be the >10%) can go from complete heterosexual to complete homosexual and back again. Others may only have the ability to make minor changes to their orientation, for example maybe 10% (going from complete heterosexual or homosexual to having a small interest in the same/opposite sex but not enough to have any real relationship). I feel this explains a lot about why some people's sexuality can change over their life and other, regardless of how much "help" they get are completely unable to change their orientation.

Last, there have been studies done by Dr. Vilain out of UCLA that have been kept rather low-key that I believe may turn out to be the key (I'm guessing the lack of publicity is to keep people from stating the secret to sexual orientation has been found). In studies he has done, he has identified markers on various genes which appear to influence gender behavior as well as orientation; he believes he has discovered 54 genes that determine gender and orientation. If this turns out to be true, it would go a long way toward explaining why there is so much variation in orientation as well as in people's gender expression.

 

[Copperpennies12]

From the article I linked:
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

You're attempting to equate being gay with a particular act, declaring that act as unnatural, and stating it's contrary to god's will. Your arguments are the same arguments used against interracial marriage.

And now I must be off to work. Be well.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and is of consenting age just as a heterosexual can. the legal rights are exactly the same.

Those advocating gay marriage say that gays can't marry the person they love but the law specifies nothing about love. Just as homosexuals cannot marry, niether can those into bestiality, incest, polygamists, etc. And arguably, polygamists would have a greater claim to marriage as there would theoretically be more "love" involved in such a case.

 

[Maren]

Homsexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and is of consenting age just as a heterosexual can. the legal rights are exactly the same.

Those advocating gay marriage say that gays can't marry the person they love but the law specifies nothing about love. Just as homosexuals cannot marry, niether can those into bestiality, incest, polygamists, etc. And arguably, polygamists would have a greater claim to marriage as there would theoretically be more "love" involved in such a case.

And this is pretty much the same as claiming that people in Iran have Freedom of Religion; everyone has an equal right to attend mosque and worship Allah.

As for bestiality, incest, and polygamy, they are not allowed because the government has compelling reasons (at least as has been decided by the Supreme Court thus far) for denying these types of marriages. There is no such "compelling reason" to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

 

[Copperpennies12]

If by "something is amiss in the mind of the homosexual" you mean that something is different, then yes...I would agree. Something IS different in the mind of a homosexual in comparison to a heterosexual...however, I would not go so far as to say it is necessarily "abnormal."

And why should we look for a cure? Even if I were to adhere to the idea that it is somehow a biological disorder, why cure it? Is it doing it harm to the individuals who have it? No. Is it doing any harm to society? No. There are zero negative outcomes of anyone being a homosexual...unless you are a Christian who believes it to be sin. Society is not in danger of extinction because of homosexuality as they make up a very, very small portion of the population and it's quite obvious that the heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job of reproducing on their own considering the number of unplanned pregnancies in this world. And even if, for some reason homosexuality became the majority and heterosexuality the minority, science offers the ability to create new life without the standard heterosexual "nature" method of reproduction.

If you think there is nothing adverse to homosexuality, then I'd refer to the Centers For Disease Control webiste on their Fact Sheet on AIDS. While the incidence of AIDS among lesbians is extremely low, that among gay men is extremely disproportionate for their demographic as compared to every other demographic.

 

[Maren]

If you think there is nothing adverse to homosexuality, then I'd refer to the Centers For Disease Control webiste on their Fact Sheet on AIDS. While the incidence of AIDS among lesbians is extremely low, that among gay men is extremely disproportionate for their demographic as compared to every other demographic.

So is there something adverse to being Black? They incidence of AIDS among Blacks (both here in the US and in Africa) is extremely disproportionate for their demographic. In fact, Washington, D.C., because of Blacks, is the "AIDS capital" of the US because of their high Black population.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Added to the Pledge during the Red Scare and found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Courts opinion that this is a Christian Nation...

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

 

[Skaloop]

Homsexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and is of consenting age just as a heterosexual can. the legal rights are exactly the same.

And if same-sex marriage is allowed, the legal rights will still be the same for everyone.

And do you really want homosexuals marrying opposite-sex people just so they can achieve their right to be married? How is that protecting the sanctity of marriage?

 

[Copperpennies12]

1. So you would agree that contraceptivs are immoral along with elderly and sterile couples that have sex?

No, because I stated that there are two considerations. One was reproduction the other was physiology.

With regards to physiology, it's apparent that the organs of the sterile and the eldery still complement each other while that of gays does not.

2. Rape theft and murder are not sexual orientations. However as for paraphilia such as paedophillia you have to remember that in the context of homosexuality the chance of people being abused is the same as with hetero relationships.

Perhaps you can go back and address my point about justifying one set of behavior on a biological basis while condeming other biologically-based behavior as that was my point.

3. The reason homosexuality is genetic would be a victory for the LGBT crowd, would not be a justification, for their is no crime to justify. It is rather that it would shift peoples perspective of homoexuality to something less based around. "It is a behaviour that is learnt through sin"

I'm not very patient of people who condescend to the religious as you just did with "learnt." Either we can hold an intelligent, adult conversation, or you will have to continue the debate without me.

4. I persoanlly as long as their is no reproduction involved see no problem with incestious marriage along with the alcoholic I would like to see a different sentance handed out if he was incapable of any real cognitive thought.

For the purpose of debate, who are you to tell two consenting adults, related or not, what they should be doing sexually or maritally? If you are going to restrict one group of people's sexual behavior, then all groups are up for subjective scrutiny.

5. As for who's morality, no ones, if your going to argu that we may as well have no laws, becuase they are all "subjective".

But morality, ethics, or some other subjective standard must be used as there is no scientific answer to this issue so we must defer to some sort of subjectivity.

Rule of thumb, if no ones rights are being abused then it continues such is law. Ethics should not come into government, merely what works for the to create the most effecient society.

Welcome to CF

Thanks for the welcome.

Ethics has plenty of room in our law. I want doctors to be ethical. I want those dealing in business to be ethical. I want lawyers to be ethical (yeah, I know that's never going to happen).

Without a set of values, we need no laws. Victimization does not exist without a set of values? Those rights you allude to in your last paragraph are based on a concept of morals or ethics (and religious ones at that). Without ethics all you have is survival of the fittest.

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by Steelerbred33

The study I provided in another post suggests that many homosexuals identify with being homosexual only after sexual abuse. Do you still believe its right in this context?​

Traumas change people, this much is true. However, once a person is changed by a trauma, then the way they are is who they are. So while the traumatic episode is a tragedy, and in a perfect world the person never would have taken on the new traits, we don't live in a perfect world. It is not the traumatised person's faulty that they suffered the trauma, presumabley, and it is wrong to persecute them for the person they become as a result.

Perhaps an easily visualisable analogy would work here...

Imagine a healthy, happy, "normal" person gets hit by a drunk driver on a pedestrian crossing, and becomes a paraplegic. It is obviously not the new paraplegics fault, and this is a tragedy. However, just because this never SHOULD have happened, and the new condition is "unnatural", doesn't make it OK to deny the paraplegic access to wheelchair ramps.
​

 

[Skaloop]

No, because I stated that there are two considerations. One was reproduction the other was physiology.

With regards to physiology, it's apparent that the organs of the sterile and the eldery still complement each other while that of gays does not.

What about someone who, say, was castrated for some reason? Can they marry even if they don't have the requisite organ?

Also, plenty of parts complement each other. Penises need not go only into vaginas, and vaginas need not be penetrated only by penises.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ah, I see our newcommer is yet another person fixated with the "homosexual=anal penis penetration" um... "school"... of thought.

 

[Copperpennies12]

And this is pretty much the same as claiming that people in Iran have Freedom of Religion; everyone has an equal right to attend mosque and worship Allah.

As for bestiality, incest, and polygamy, they are not allowed because the government has compelling reasons (at least as has been decided by the Supreme Court thus far) for denying these types of marriages. There is no such "compelling reason" to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

And this is pretty much the same as claiming that people in Iran have Freedom of Religion; everyone has an equal right to attend mosque and worship Allah.

That's some twisted logic.

Marriage is a natural promotion of family. I'm not arguing that it always works but that is what it is about. It takes advantage of the natural physiology of men and women. Perhaps you can explain the physiological connection to religion in Iran.

As for bestiality, incest, and polygamy, they are not allowed because the government has compelling reasons (at least as has been decided by the Supreme Court thus far) for denying these types of marriages. There is no such "compelling reason" to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

The compelling reason for a man not to marry a dog is?

When abortion is both legal and readily available, the compelling reason why a man cannot marry his sister is? And regardless of abortion, who says their marriage would be necessarily consummated? And even if they wanted to have children, the government has not been in the business of telling couples that could have risky pregnancies or were likely to have deformed children that they could not marry or get pregnant.

The compelling reason to deny marriage to gays is that be legalizing the behavior, you give it official government recognition as normal and natural. Based on the values our country was founded on (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Library of Congress Exhibition) - Library of Congress website) and the physiology of humans, neither is true.

With official government recognition comes the inserting of homosexuality into government venues such as schools. While you may have no problem with teaching that homosexuality is normal and natural, many Americans who understand the basics of physiology and believe in certain cultural norms, it can be/is an issue.

 

[Copperpennies12]

So is there something adverse to being Black? They incidence of AIDS among Blacks (both here in the US and in Africa) is extremely disproportionate for their demographic. In fact, Washington, D.C., because of Blacks, is the "AIDS capital" of the US because of their high Black population.

I'm sorry, but the claim was made that, "There are zero negative outcomes of anyone being a homosexual..." so can you tell me where my response did not refute that claim?

 

[Copperpennies12]

And if same-sex marriage is allowed, the legal rights will still be the same for everyone.

Agreed, but I see no compelling reason to recognize same-sex marriage.

And do you really want homosexuals marrying opposite-sex people just so they can achieve their right to be married? How is that protecting the sanctity of marriage?

Who said I wanted them to marry? I merely stated that they had the same exact legal rights as heterosexuals.

 

[b&wpac4]

I'm sorry, but the claim was made that, "There are zero negative outcomes of anyone being a homosexual..." so can you tell me where my response did not refute that claim?

There are zero negative outcomes from a person being a homosexual. Homosexuals have an attraction to the same sex. The attraction alone causes a person no specific harm.

There can be negative outcomes to engaging in risky behavior, such as unprotected sex outside of a monotonous relationship. These kinds of behaviors can lead to STDs, and thus have a very negative outcome, sometimes resulting in death.

 

[b&wpac4]

Who said I wanted them to marry? I merely stated that they had the same exact legal rights as heterosexuals.

I feel you are making a critical error with this line of reasoning. This is, as I said before, akin to banning all non-Christian religions and then proclaiming that everybody has freedom of religion, providing they, of course, pick Christianity. It's like the joke about the Model T Ford: You can have any color you want, so long as it's black.

 

[Copperpennies12]

What about someone who, say, was castrated for some reason? Can they marry even if they don't have the requisite organ?

Also, plenty of parts complement each other. Penises need not go only into vaginas, and vaginas need not be penetrated only by penises.

I refer you back to my first post.

"If one is to examine homosexuality from a scientific perspective, shouldn't the discussion include more context. While I'm no biologist, I've had some basic biology in my education to include two college courses on biology. One thing that comes to mind is basic physiology; that is the function/purpose of organs.

If you consider the sexual reproductive organs, they are designed so that a man's organs not only complement a woman's but also has a reproductive value. The same cannot be said for the organs of two men or the organs of two women."

Other organs are not designed for sex.